607 



XENOPHON. 



XENOPHON. 



668 



unity is the necessary result of all reflection upon the nature of things ; 

 the mind can conceive only one first cause, one power which pervades 

 and sustains all things. When men first began to attempt to express 

 their conceptions of the Deity and of the universe, the language of 

 philosophy was unformed, and hence it is possible that their words 

 inay to us sometimes express what was not intended. Now some 

 later writers certainly attribute expressions to Xenophanes from which 

 we might infer that his doctrine was Pantheistic ; but the passages 

 of the earlier writers, such as Aristotle, distinctly show that, in such 

 passages at least, he speaks of Qod as a Being eternal and distinct from 

 the visible universe. In order to bring him under the imputation of 

 Pantheism, we ought, as Cousin remarks, to be able to show that he 

 applied those terms to the visible universe which, according to Aris- 

 totle and other good authorities, he applied to God. Xenophanes did 

 form, it appears, a distinct conception of the unity of the Deity, 

 but he did not reduce to any systematic form the mode in which 

 the Deity must be viewed in relation to the visible phenomena. He 

 speaks of the Deity as a self-existing all-powerful Being ; and he also 

 speaks of all things as being Qod. Thus his system, so far as we can 

 ascertain it, left room either for the Pantheistic interpretation or for 

 the doctrine of pure Deism. Aristotle says ('Metaph.,' i. 5) that 

 Xenophanes introduced the doctrine of the unity of the one according 

 to reason and the one according to matter ; but he said nothing clear 

 on this subject, nor did he ascertain the nature of each, but looking at 

 the whole heavens he said, the One is God. The system of Xenophanes 

 is discussed at great length by Cousin (' Biog. Univ.,' art. ' Xenophanes'), 

 and with considerable ingenuity. This article and the references at 

 the end of the present article will indicate all the sources which the 

 reader may wish to consult on this obscure subject. 



The work attributed to Aristotle, entitled ' On Xenophanes, Zeno, 

 and Gorgias,' should be entitled ' On Melissus, Xenophanes, and 

 Gorgias ; ' it contains a condensed view and a criticism of the Eleatic 

 philosophy. (' Biographical Dictionary ' of the Society for the Diffu- 

 sion of Useful Knowledge, art. ' Aristotle.') 



The chief fragments of Xenophanes are collected in Eitter and 

 Preller, ' Historia Philosophise Graeco-Romanse ex fontium locis con- 

 texta,' Hamburg, 1838; and they were edited by Simon Karsten, 

 8vo, Brussels, 1830. 



(Diogenes Laertius, Xenophanes ; Hitter, Geschichte der Philosophic, 

 vol. i.) 



XE'NOPHON (S.evo(p(av) t the son of Gryllus, an Athenian citizen, 

 was a native of the Attic demus Ercheia. The only extant biography 

 of Xenophon is by Diogenes Laertius, which, as usual, is carelessly 

 written ; but this biography and the scattered notices of ancient 

 writers, combined with what may be collected from Xenophon's own 

 works, are the only materials for his life. 



There is no direct authority either for the time of Xenophon's birth 

 or death, but these dates may be approximated to with reasonable 

 probability. Laertius and Strabo state that Socrates saved Xenophon's 

 life at the battle of Delium, B.C. 424, a fact which there seems no 

 reason for rejecting, and from which it may be inferred that Xenophon 

 was born about B.C. 444. In his 'Hellenica' (vi. 4, 35) he mentions 

 the assassination of Alexander of Pherae, which took place B.C. 357, 

 and Xencphon was of course alive in that year. This agrees well 

 enough with Lucian's statement that Xenophon attained the age of 

 above ninety. (' Macrob.' 21.) Much has been said as to Xenophon's 

 age at the time of his joining the expedition of the younger Cyrus, 

 B.c. 401 ; and the dispute turns on the point whether he was then a 

 young man between twenty and thirty, or a man of forty and upwards. 

 Those who make him a young man rely on the expression in the 

 'Anabasis' (ii. 1, 12), where he is called neaniscus (veaviffKos), but in 

 this passage, in place of ' Xenophon,' the best manuscripts read ' Theo- 

 pompus : ' it is also observed that the term neaniscus was not confined 

 to young men, but was sometimes applied to men of forty at least. 

 Besides this, those who contend that he was forty or upwards in the 

 year B.C. 401, rely on another passage in the 'Anabasis' (vii. 2, 8), 

 where he is spoken of as a man who seemed old enough to have a 

 marriageable daughter. On the whole there is nothing in the 'Ana- 

 basis ' inconsistent with a date about the year B.C. 444, which may be 

 assigned as that of his birth. This subject and other points in the 

 chronology of Xenophon have been discussed by C. W. Kriiger ('De 

 Xenophontis Vita Quacstiones Criticse,' Halle, 1822). 



According to Laertius, Xenophon became the pupil of Socrates at 

 an early age. There is also a notice in Philostratus of his receiving 

 lessons from Prodicus of Ceos while he was a prisoner in Boeotia, but 

 there is no other evidence as to the fact of his having fallen into the 

 hands of the Boeotians. In the fable of the Choice of Hercules 

 (' Memorab.,' ii. 1), Xenophon does not give any indication of his 

 personal acquaintance with Prodicus ; but nothing can be concluded 

 from such an omission. Photius states that he was also a pupil of 

 Isocrates, who was however younger than Xenophon. If this is true 

 it is probable that ho was a pupil of Isocrates before the year B.C. 401. 

 Athenacus (x. 427, ed. Casaub.) also quotes a saying of Xenophon at 

 the table of Diouysius the Tyrant, but he does not say whether the 

 older or younger tyrant is meant. The older tyraut reigned till 

 B.C. 367, and it is more likely, if Xenophon ever went to Syracuse, 

 that he went before B.C. 367 than after. It is not known if Xenophon 

 wrote anything before the year B.C. 401, though Letronue with con- 



siderable plausibility would assign the composition of the ' Banquet,' 

 or ' Symposium,' and of the ' Hiero,' to a period before B.C. 401. 



There is another question in the life of Xenophon that remains to 

 be discussed, which is somewhat connected with the chronology of his 

 own life and with that of Thucydides. Laertius states, " it is said 

 that Xenophon made known the books of Thucydides, which were 

 then unknown, though it was in his power to appropriate them to 

 himself." There has been a difference of opinion as to the time of 

 the death of Thucydides, and Dodwell, by misunderstanding a passage 

 in the history of Thucydides (iii. 116) as to the third eruption of 

 ^Etna, which is there mentioned, has concluded that he was alive in 

 the year B.C. 395. But this is a mistake : the third eruption there 

 spoken of is that of the year B.C. 425, the sixth year of the Pelopon- 

 nesian war. The history of Thucydides closes with the eighth book, 

 and the year B.C. 411, the twenty-first year of the Peloponnesian war ; 

 and there is no evidence to render it in the slightest degree probable 

 that he ever finished it. That he intended to finish it is clear enough 

 from the first chapter of the first book. The ' Hellenics ' of Xenophon 

 commence where the history of Thucydides breaks off, and are a con- 

 tinuation of the work of Thucydides. Thucydides was recalled from 

 exile B.C. 403, but it is not known how long he survived his recall. 

 The fact of his not having finished his history leads to a probable con- 

 clusion that he did not survive the termination of the war many 

 years, but such conclusion is only a moderate probability, for there 

 are many reasons besides want of time why a man does not finish a 

 large undertaking. 



Letronne assumes that Thucydides did not survive the year 

 B.C. 402, but there is no evidence for fixing on this year, and Letronne 

 has been induced to do it simply in order to give to Xenophon the 

 honour of making known the books of Thucydides before the year 

 B.C. 401 ; for we are certain, he says, that Xenophon was at Athens in 

 the year B.C. 402. But though we may admit the truth of the story, 

 that Xenophon was the first editor of Thucydides, and may even have 

 added the eighth book from the materials collected by the historian, 

 there is no reason for fixing the date of this publication before the 

 year B.C. 401 rather than after. 



In B.C. 401 Xenophon went to Sardes to Cyrus, the Persian, the 

 brother of Artaxerxes Mnemon, king of Persia. He tells us himself 

 ('Anab.,' i. 1) the circumstances of this journey. Proxenus, Xeno- 

 phon's friend, was then with Cyrus, and he invited Xenophon to come, 

 and promised to introduce him to Cyrus. Xenophou took the advice 

 of Socrates, who, fearing that Xenophon might incur the displeasure of 

 the Athenians if he attached himself to Cyrus, inasmuch as Cyrus 

 was supposed to have given the Lacedaemonians aid in their recent 

 wars against Athens, advised Xenophon to consult the oracle of Delphi. 

 Xenophon went to Delphi and asked the god (Apollo) to what gods he 

 should sacrifice and make his vows in order to secure success in the 

 enterprise which he meditated. The god gave him his answer, but 

 Socrates blamed him for not asking whether he should undertake the 

 voyage or not. However, as he had obtained an answer from the god, 

 Socrates advised him to follow the god's commands ; and accordingly 

 Xenophon set out -for Sardes, where he found Cyrus and Proxenus 

 just ready to leave the city on an expedition. This story is charac- 

 teristic both of Socrates and Xenophon. 



It was given out by Cyrus that his expedition was against the 

 Pisidians, and all the Greeks in the army were deceived, except 

 Clearchus, who was in the secret. The object of Cyrus was to 

 dethrone his brother, and after advancing a short distance it became 

 apparent to all the Greeks, who however, with the exception of a few, 

 determined to follow him. After a long march through Asia Minor, 

 Syria, and the sandy tract east of the Euphrates, the two brothers met 

 at Cunaxa, not far from Babylon. Cyrus fell in the almost bloodless 

 battle that ensued, his barbarian troops were discouraged and dis- 

 persed, and the Greeks were left alone in the centre of the Persian 

 empire. Clearchus was by common consent invited to take the 

 command, but he and many of the Greek commanders were shortly 

 after massacred by the treachery of Tissaphernes, the Persian satrap, 

 who was acting for the king. It was now that Xenophon catue 

 forward. He had hitherto merely followed the army of Cyrus, and 

 had neither held a command nor even been considered as a soldier. 

 He introduces himself to our notice at the beginning of the third book 

 of the ' Anabasis ' in that simple manner which characterises the best 

 writers of antiquity. From this time Xenophon became one of the 

 most active leaders, and under his guidance the Greeks effected their 

 retreat northwards across the high lands of Armenia and arrived at 

 Trapezus (Trebisond), a Greek colony on the south-east coast of the 

 Black Sea. From Trapezus Xenophon conducted the Greeks to Chry- 

 sopolis, opposite to Byzantium. Both he and the army were in great 

 distress, for they had lost everything in the retreat, and they were 

 therefore ready enough to accept the proposals of Seuthes, king of 

 Thrace, who wished to have their aid in recovering the kingly power. 

 The Greeks performed the stipulated services, but the Thracian would 

 not pay the amount agreed on, and it was not till after some nego- 

 ciations that Xenophon obtained a part of what was due to the army. 

 At this time the Lacedemonian general Thiinbron was carrying on a 

 war against Tissaphernes aud Pharnabazus, and ho invited the Greeks 

 under Xenophon to join him. At the request of his soldiers Xenophon 

 conducted the troops back into Asia, and they joined the army of 



